IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 188 of 2009(S)
1. BIJU V. S/O. VASUDEVAN, KETTUNGASSERIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SRI.JAMES, THURUTHU PURAYIDOM,
4. SMT.TREESA SHEELA, THURUTHU PURAYIDOM,
5. SRI.SHINE, S/O. LUCKOSE, THURUTHU
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :01/06/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No. 188 of 2009-S
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this writ
petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that
Ms. Anu James, a girl aged above 18 years with whom he had
entered into a contract of marriage, has been illegally detained
by respondents 3 to 5 – her father, mother and a relative
respectively. The alleged detenue Ms. Anu James is born
admittedly on 14/10/90. It is the case of the petitioner that
after coming to know of the alleged marriage between the
petitioner and the said Anu James, she was taken away from
the Police Station by her relatives i.e., respondents 3 to 5.
According to the petitioner, the said Anu James was being
illegally detained and kept in custody.
W.P.(Cri) No. 188 of 2009-S
-: 2 :-
2. This petition was admitted and notice was ordered to the
respondents. On 22/5/09 the said Anu James was brought before
court in the company of the 3rd respondent. We interacted in
the Chambers with her. We also attempted to ascertain her
wishes. The 3rd respondent – the father of the alleged detenue,
submitted that she was too young and immature to take an
informed decision, though in law a major. Her tender age may
be taken into consideration. She may be given time to think,
contemplate and come to a firm decision, submitted the 3rd
respondent and his counsel.
3. After our interactions with the alleged detenue Ms. Anu
James, we were persuaded to accept that request. We felt that
she must be given a further time to make a proper response. We
were satisfied that such a course shall cater to the ends of the
justice. Subject to appropriate safeguards, Ms. Anu James were
be permitted to return with her parents along with whom she
came to court on 22/5/09. They were directed to appear before
court again today.
4. Today, when the case was called in the morning in court,
Ms. Anu James submitted that she has a relationship with the
petitioner; but she now wants to complete her studies and
thereafter think of getting married to the petitioner.
W.P.(Cri) No. 188 of 2009-S
-: 3 :-
Apprehending that Ms. Anu James was under great mental strain
and confusion, she was granted time to make her statement and
later she was called to the Chambers. We interacted with her as
also the petitioner herein and the 3rd respondent in the presence
of their counsel. No harmonious settlement could be reached by
the parties as there are major areas of disagreement between
them. After giving sufficient time to Ms. Anu James, she was
again called. The case case again called in court after 3.30 p.m.
and her response was solicited. She stands by her assertion
made earlier in the morning that she is not under any detention
or confinement. She asserts that she wants to return with her
father. She further submits that she wants to complete her
studies. She states that after she completes her studies and is
able to stand on her own legs, she will think of getting formally
married to the petitioner herein.
5. Having ascertained all the relevant circumstances, we
are persuaded to feel that though there was some relationship
between the petitioner and the said Anu James, she is not
illegally confined or detained by her parents, we respect her
statement that she now wants to return along with her father –
the 3rd respondent and complete her studies. We also accept
her statement that the question of perpetuating the relationship
W.P.(Cri) No. 188 of 2009-S
-: 4 :-
with the petitioner shall be considered after she completes her
education and secures employment, if any.
6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no
specific directions need now be issued in this writ petition. This
writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Ms. Anu James, true to
her statement before court, is permitted to leave the court with
her father – the 3rd respondent with whom she had come to court
on 22/5/09 as also today.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
M.C. Hari Rani
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge